City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court
41 Cal. 4th 747, 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527, 161 P.3d 1095 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An agreement made in the context of sports or recreational programs that purports to release a party from liability for future gross negligence is unenforceable as it violates public policy.

Facts:

Katie Janeway, a 14-year-old with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy and epilepsy, was enrolled in the City of Santa Barbara's 'Adventure Camp,' a summer program for children with similar disabilities.
Katie's mother, Maureen Janeway, signed an application form that contained a release, waiving all claims against the City for injury 'whether caused by any negligent act or omission of the releasees or otherwise.'
Maureen Janeway informed the City that Katie was prone to seizures, particularly in water, and required close supervision while swimming.
The City was aware that Katie had suffered seizures at the camp in a prior year.
The City assigned a specific counselor, Veronica Malong, to provide one-on-one supervision for Katie during swimming activities.
On the day of the incident, Katie suffered a mild seizure approximately one hour before entering the pool. After observing Katie for about 45 minutes, Malong determined it was safe for her to swim.
After Katie dove into the pool, Malong momentarily diverted her attention for no more than 15 seconds. When Malong looked back, Katie had disappeared.
After a search lasting between two and five minutes, Katie was found unresponsive at the bottom of the pool and died the next day.

Procedural Posture:

Katie Janeway's parents, Terral and Maureen Janeway, filed a wrongful death action against the City of Santa Barbara and counselor Veronica Malong in a California trial court.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the release agreement signed by Maureen Janeway.
The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The defendants petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, asking it to order the trial court to grant their motion.
The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the release was enforceable as to ordinary negligence but unenforceable as to gross negligence.
The California Supreme Court granted review, limiting the issue to whether a release of liability for recreational activities is effective as to gross negligence.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an agreement purporting to release liability for future gross negligence in the context of a recreational program violate public policy and is it therefore unenforceable?

Opinions:

Majority - George, C. J.

Yes. An agreement purporting to release liability for future gross negligence in a recreational context is unenforceable because it violates public policy. While releases for future ordinary negligence may be valid in recreational settings that do not involve the public interest, public policy precludes enforcement of an agreement that would remove a party's obligation to adhere to even a minimal standard of care. Gross negligence, defined as a 'want of even scant care' or 'an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct,' represents an aggravated form of misconduct that public policy seeks to discourage. This rule is consistent with the vast majority of other jurisdictions and is based on a rationale separate from the 'public interest' factors established in Tunkl, focusing instead on the severity of the misconduct itself. The court rejected arguments that this rule would lead to the widespread cancellation of recreational programs, finding no empirical evidence to support such claims.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennard, J.

Yes. The release is unenforceable as to gross negligence, but for reasons different than the majority's. The majority's creation of a categorical rule against all gross negligence releases usurps the Legislature's authority, as Civil Code section 1668 deliberately omits 'gross negligence' from its list of non-releasable claims. The proper approach is to apply the six-factor 'public interest' test from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. In this specific context—a recreational camp for developmentally disabled children—all six Tunkl factors are met, demonstrating that the transaction affects the public interest and renders the release for gross negligence unenforceable. Because gross negligence is more aggravated than ordinary negligence, a lesser showing under the Tunkl analysis should be sufficient to invalidate a release.

Dissenting - Baxter, J.

No. The release of liability for 'any negligent act' should be fully enforceable. The Legislature, in Civil Code section 1668, specified which releases are against public policy and deliberately chose not to include gross negligence; the court should not rewrite the statute. Furthermore, the public interest exception from Tunkl does not apply because recreational activities are not essential services, and California courts have consistently upheld releases in this context. The majority's decision ignores the competing public policy of enabling municipalities to offer affordable and beneficial recreational programs by managing liability risks. Any change to the established law of releases should come from the Legislature, not the courts.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a clear, categorical rule in California that liability for future gross negligence cannot be waived by contract in the context of recreational activities. The court distinguished this public policy rationale from the transaction-focused 'public interest' test of Tunkl, creating a separate basis for invalidating releases that depends solely on the severity of the alleged misconduct. This holding significantly limits the effectiveness of liability waivers for providers of recreational services, who now remain exposed to claims for gross negligence regardless of the language in their release forms. Consequently, such providers must ensure they maintain at least a minimal standard of care, as they cannot contractually insulate themselves from the consequences of an extreme departure from that standard.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"